When is cultural relativism right

Arbitrary rights claims assume no challenge against imperialism unless they can offer a means of asserting moral authority. Recognising that the inverse also applies, Vincent immediately extricates himself from the most overt form of imperialism — state intervention. Vincent concludes his defence by proposing a solution to the problem of competing human rights claims.

But he does not extend his argument to its natural conclusion. In the absence of an objective moral standard, it may equally follow that there are no valid cultural standards or, otherwise, that they are all equally valid.

Nor is there any implicit guarantee that, in the realm of competition over the content of international rights, power politics will not prevail. Bull, , p. Even if we were to accept the premise that states engage in human rights discourse and that the legal principles of jus cogens and ius genium intra se are empirical evidence of this phenomenon, we are left with a procedural problem. Second, Vincent inadvertently anchors the normative value of individual rights claims to the overriding moral value of Western modernity.

Nor is his bid for escape convincing. Post-colonial theorists have since obliged. Santos, , pp. Initially, it eliminates the issue of nascent imperialism altogether. The latter depends on the emancipatory value of human rights claims and whether they can be mobilised within localised cultural contexts. Herskovits, , p. Santos, , p. Failure to act or even speak out against the grossest affronts to human dignity overseas on the grounds of cultural relativism would be widely- and I believe correctly- perceived as moral cowardice.

Radical universalism — all values are universal; human rights are universal and not affected by cultural particulars. Strong relativism — human rights values are principally but not entirely determined by culture. Weak relativism— human rights are principally determined by universal values but they can be modified by some cultural factors.

Accordingly, here are some analytical "tests" that can be used to evaluate claims of universalism or relativism:. Cultural Relativism test: Is the practice defensible within the basic value framework of the society?

Practices that do not even stand up to such evaluations can in no sense be defended on cultural terms. Universalism test: T he presumption must be that human rights apply universally, although that presumption can be overcome by particular cultural argument. Human rights are universal unless proven otherwise by a particular cultural argument.

Validity test: Is the action a principled action or a self-interested action? Avoidance of harm test: Harm may be considered to take place when there is death, pain, disability, loss of freedom or pleasure that results from an act by one human upon another. It is the notion of harm done to individuals or groups that can be used to explore the terrain between universal rights and cultural relativism. When reasonable persons from different cultural backgrounds agree that certain institutions or cultural practices cause harm, then the moral neutrality of cultural relativism must be suspended.

YouTube Video. To what extent can human rights be universal in a world with so many different identities, cultures and traditions? To what extent is human rights a western construction or a new form of Western imperialism, masking Western interests in the name of morality? Can both concepts co-exist or are they mutually exclusive?

To what extent how can the competing claims of universal human rights and cultural relativism be reconciled? Evaluate the claim that it is wrong to expect that international human rights law and regimes should be universally respected in the face of vastly different national, legal and cultural systems.

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. Outside cultures such as the United States look down upon FGC, but are unable to stop this practice from happening because it is protected by its culture.

Cultural relativism can be seen with the Chinese culture and their process of feet binding. Foot binding was to stop the growth of the foot and make them smaller. The process often began between four and seven years old. A ten foot bandage would be wrapped around the foot forcing the toes to go under the foot. It caused the big toe to be closer to the heel causing the foot to bow. Because men only wanted women with small feet, even after this practice was banned in , women still continued to do it.

To Western cultures the idea of feet binding might seems torturous, but for the Chinese culture it was a symbol of beauty that has been ingrained the culture for hundreds of years. Once we allow the moral validity of such commitments, we are bound to accept at least certain types of substantive moral variability, including variability in human rights practices.

Most important, it rests on the notion of self-determination. If human rights are based in human nature, on the simple fact that one is a human being, then how can human rights be relative in any fundamental way? The simple answer is that human nature is in itself in some measure culturally relative. The effects of culture in shaping individuals are systematic and may lead to the predominance of distinctive social types in different cultures. Whether we conceive of this process as involving cultural variation around an unalterable core or as cultural variation largely within a physiologically fixed range, there is a social side to human nature that cannot be denied, at least insofar as that nature is expressed.

The cultural variability of human nature not only permits but requires significant allowance for cross-cultural variations in human rights.